A bill that would put strict restrictions on reproductive rights for women has passed Indiana’s House of Representatives and is headed to the state’s governor for signing. The bill, known as HB 1337, excludes aborted fetuses from typical biological waste regulations, a stipulation that experts fear will make women who have an abortion or miscarriage responsible for the disposal of the fetus through cremation or burial.

This stipulation alone may increase the cost of abortion and miscarriage care for women in Indiana if the bill becomes law—not to mention the trauma—creating an added deterrent for women. In most states, fetal tissue is included with medical waste.

HB 1337 would also require that women who want to have an abortion be given “the opportunity” to listen to the heartbeat and view an ultrasound of the fetus 18 hours before having the procedure done, at the same time they have to sign the consent form. In addition, the bill bans abortion when the sole reason is due to the fetus’s sex, race, color, national origin, ancestry, Down syndrome, or any other genetic anomaly. The bill also includes language that says an abortion cannot be conducted due to “any other disability”—a broad term that can include fetuses that aren’t expected to live long after birth.

An abortion would only be permitted if the anomaly is considered “lethal” in that the fetus would die within three months. The bill would then require that a woman seeking an abortion due to a lethal fetal anomaly would be given information on perinatal hospice care.

And finally, the bill would amend an existing complicated requirement for physicians. Currently an abortion provider in Indiana must either have admitting privileges at a local hospital or have a contract with another physician who has those privileges, explains Elizabeth Nash, a senior state issues associate at the Guttmacher Institute. The bill would require that the contract be filed each year with all the local hospitals.

“This looks to be a way to dissuade any physician from entering into a contract with an abortion provider by ‘outing’ him or her,” says Nash.

Per a requirement added to Indiana law last year, women are required to be informed of the “final disposition” of the fetus, and she and her partner have the right to choose which method of disposal to use. “It’s pretty obvious that this is a tactic used to make women feel badly about their decision to terminate the pregnancy,” says Nash.

Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) calls HB 1337 “dangerous for women.” “This bill is a classic example of how you cannot separate abortion care form the entire spectrum of women’s reproductive healthcare,” she says. “Pregnancies go wrong and sometimes fetal abnormalities go so wrong that the woman’s health is in danger.” Prohibiting a woman from terminating a pregnancy that is dangerous to her health can also threaten a woman’s ability to have a healthy pregnancy in the future, O’Neill says.

San Francisco Bay Area ob/gyn Jen Gunter, M.D. agrees. “This is clearly meant to be punitive for women,” she says. “There’s nothing medical about it.”

If passed, Gunter says the bill may prevent women from seeking care when they’re miscarrying in an attempt to avoid a costly hospital bill—and risk their health in the process. “People delay care all the time because they worry about cost,” she points out.

And then there’s the issue of choice when a woman discovers she’s carrying a baby that will not live more than a few days after birth. “People don’t want to have to go through these births,” says Gunter.

Not only can the experience of carrying and birthing a baby who won’t survive be traumatic, Gunter notes that it can come with an added financial cost in medical care once the baby arrives. “For babies born with trisomy 13 and 18, survival beyond a few days is almost never going to happen,” she says. “Are doctors then going to have to do heroic measures for an infant born with these conditions? Who is going to pay for all of that?”

Unfortunately, Kelly Baden, director of state Advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights, says that this type of restrictive bill is nothing new for the state. “In the past five years, Indiana has quietly considered more than 60 bills aiming to eliminate access to safe, legal abortion care,” she says. “This bill is a transparent and cynical attempt to choke off access to our constitutional rights, and gives politicians license to question and intrude into our personal and private decisions.”

Nor is Indiana an isolated case. Just last week, the Supreme Court heard a case related to Texas's House Bill 2, a controversial law passed in 2013 that limits access to abortion in the state by intensifying regulations on clinics. Both HB 1337 and HB 2 are considered TRAP laws (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers), which selectively impose higher restrictions on medical practices that provide abortions than are typically imposed on other medical practices. Since HB2 was passed, about half the abortion clinics in Texas have closed.

If this dangerous Indiana bill also gets passed, it’ll be another in a long list of restrictive abortion laws that unnecessarily and punitively restrict women’s safe and legal access to this vital medical procedure.

This story was updated clarify stipulations in HB 1337 related to the disposal of fetuses and the viewing of an ultrasound before an abortion procedure.